Develop a river access plan that’s good for everyone

I enjoyed your article in the News-Sentinel about river access.
One problem, though: Most of the access I remember people (kids)
having in the past was due to trespassing on agricultural or
railroad property.

As part of the family which owned property now known as
Rivergate, I remember constant trespass and vandalism problems as
well as liability issues from trespassers accessing the river.
People who were considerate enough to ask for permission to fish
were usually allowed onto the property until liability became a
major concern.

It is too bad that Rivergate subdivision was allowed to develop
as it did. The original bottomland was very similar to the Lodi
Lake Nature Area, except with a bigger pond. I understand that
changing the riparian bottomland as it did would not be allowed
under today’s regulations. Hopefully such development with
community access to river and better long-term planning will happen
in the future.

That is easy for me to say since I won’t be negatively affected
by the public access. However, if a complete enough plan can be
developed in possible cooperation between all the parties
concerned, and possibly a non-governmental agency as was done for
the Cosumnes River Preserve, everyone’s major concerns could be
mollified.